Merci Marc, for all your detailed answers and addressing the blocking DISCUSS point.
I have now cleared my DISCUSS ballot, Good job by the authors, the shepherd, and the WG ! Regards -éric From: Marc Blanchet <marc.blanc...@viagenie.ca> Date: Tuesday, 25 January 2022 at 23:25 To: Eric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com> Cc: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484...@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484...@ietf.org>, regext-chairs <regext-cha...@ietf.org>, regext <regext@ietf.org>, Jasdip Singh <jasd...@arin.net> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Le 1 déc. 2021 à 05:39, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org<mailto:nore...@ietf.org>> a écrit : Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis-04: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-regext-rfc7484bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work put into this document. Special congratulations for having THREE implementations including one by the author. Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (trivial to address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be appreciated even if only for my own education). I am also sympathetic to Ben Kaduk's DISCUSS point. Special thanks to Jasdip Singh for the shepherd's write-up including the section about the WG consensus. I hope that this helps to improve the document, Regards, -éric -- Section 5.2 -- The end of this section uses "https://example.net/rdaprir2/ip/2001:0db8:1000::/48"; (not RFC 5952 compatible with the leading zero in front of "db8") as an example but this example seems to contradict section 3.1.1 of RFC 9082. <MB>Done in -05</MB> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- == COMMENTS == -- Section 1 -- No need to reply, but I really appreciate the author's use of the past tense in "Per this document, IANA has created new registries" as opposed to similar documents using the future tense. This document will age well ;-) <MB>no action</MB> -- Section 3 -- "be retrieved via HTTP from locations specified by IANA" should this document include the IANA location ? <MB>To my knowledge, it has been the policy of IANA/IETF to not publish the location URL of the registries in RFCs</MB> Should a "real" date be used rather than "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ" ? I.e., the syntax is specified later anyway so let's use a real example ? Later examples in section 5 use "real" dates but not those in section 4 ;-) <MB>Done in -05</MB> -- Section 5.2 -- Should RFC 5952 also be specified as IPv6 representation in addition to RFC 4291 ? <MB>Done in -05</MB> -- Section 5.3 -- The IANA allocation for documentation ASN is rather short (6 ASNs !), so, I do not mind too much that the example in this section uses private ASN space but suggest anyway to limit the example to the documentation ASNs. <MB>Private ASN space enables the document to provide various cases. Documentation ASN space is too short to properly show the various cases</MB> THanks, Regards, Marc.
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list regext@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
